site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: pro-apps-dev@lists.apple.com When you lipo a universal build, the 32-bit and 64-bit sides can link against different frameworks and compile with different headers. The other architectures are not accessed when loading. I think the only reason to separate them is if you need different plists or resources. On Jun 29, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Darrin Cardani wrote:

On Jun 29, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Christoph Vonrhein wrote:

...

Is there a way to compile a 32-bit FxPlug that does not to appear in Motion 5?

Interesting question. They shouldn't be showing up already, but it appears they are. Please file a bug on that.

...

And also: Is there a way to compile a 64-bit FxPlug that does not appear in Motion 2-4?

I don't want to create 32/64 mixed plugins, because I want to take advantage of the new 2.0 features and because of the complications that there are if I want to compile two different FxPlug frameworks into one plugin.

One solution would be to use dynamic registration. When being loaded, you can check the host version number and not return any plug-ins if you're in the wrong host.

Darrin -- Darrin Cardani dcardani@apple.com

_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Pro-apps-dev mailing list (Pro-apps-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/pro-apps-dev/garrick%40digitalanarchy...

This email sent to garrick@digitalanarchy.com

_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Pro-apps-dev mailing list (Pro-apps-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/pro-apps-dev/site_archiver%40lists.ap... This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com